DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “release means for separating the one or more retroreflectors from the propulsion unit…” in Claim 1.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a
new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the
claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderegger (US 2022/0290951) in view of Burgess (US 2018/0072419).
Regarding Claim 1, Moderegger teaches:
An airborne passive decoy system for use in a radio waveband ([0009]: “a decoy target comprising at least two corner reflectors which reflect radar radiation”), the system comprising a controllable aerial propulsion unit and one or more retroreflectors ([0009]: “at least two corner reflectors”; [0010]: “carrier system”), wherein the one or more retroreflectors are mounted on, contained within or otherwise borne by the controllable propulsion unit … ([0010]; Fig. 2a), and wherein the system is configured such that the one or more retroreflectors can be deployed as a decoy at a desired location and/or time ([0010]; [0020]; [0023]: Deploying the decoy at a certain location and/or time is necessary for deceiving a missile.),
wherein the airborne passive decoy system is an integral system ([0009]: “a system comprising at least one decoy target of this type or as described below is provided, wherein the system has a carrier system”; Fig. 2a),
wherein the controllable aerial propulsion unit is an unmanned aerial or unmanned aerial- aquatic vehicle configured such that a position of the decoy system can be influenced after launch as well as at launch ([0035]: “unmanned aircraft”),
wherein the system additionally comprises a release means for deploying the one or more retroreflectors from … the propulsion unit ([0022]: “The connection by the connecting elements can be permanent or temporary.”; [0027]),and
wherein the system additionally comprises a tether configured to link the one or more retroreflectors to the propulsion unit after deployment ([0022]: “connecting elements”; [0064]; Fig. 2a, 2b showing the decoy system, including a propulsion unit linked to retroflectors, in a “deployed state” (i.e., after deployment)).
Moderegger does not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more retroreflectors are mounted on, contained within or otherwise borne by the controllable propulsion unit in a pre-deployed state,
wherein the system additionally comprises release means for deploying the one or more retroreflectors from the pre-deployed state at the propulsion unit,
or wherein the release means is further configured to sever the tether to dispense to dispense the one or more retroreflectors in order to allow reuse of the controllable aerial propulsion unit.
However, Burgess is in the field of UAVs (Burgess [Abstract]) and teaches a UAV payload delivery system, wherein the payload is mounted on, contained within or otherwise borne by the controllable propulsion unit in a pre-deployed state (Burgess [0037]: “As shown in FIG. 1A, the payload delivery system 110 may function to hold the payload 108 against or close to the bottom of the UAV 100, or even inside the UAV 100”),
wherein the system additionally comprises release means for deploying the payload from the pre-deployed state at the propulsion unit (Burgess [0037]: “the UAV's control system may operate the tether-deployment mechanism 104 such that the payload 108, secured by the payload-release device 106, is suspended by the tether 102 and lowered to the ground, as shown in FIG. 1B”), and
wherein the release means is further configured to sever the tether to dispense the payload in order to allow reuse of the controllable aerial propulsion unit (Burgess [0037]: “payload-release device 106 to release the payload 108, and thereby detach the payload 108 from the tether 102”; [0091]: “a UAV 100 may include an emergency-release system (not shown in the Figures), which is configured to cut or release the tether 102 from the UAV 100.”; [0092]: “sever the tether”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moderegger and contain the retroreflectors within the propulsion unit in a pre-deployed state, use release means to release the retroreflectors from the pre-deployed state, and use the release means to sever the tether and dispense the retroreflectors, as taught by Burgess, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using the release means to deploy the retroreflectors and sever the connection to the retroreflectors would be beneficial for controlling the timing and location of retroreflector deployment. Modifying Moderegger with the release means of Burgess involves combining prior art elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the one or more retroreflectors comprise a parachute ([0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the one or more retroreflector(s) are configured to transform from a collapsed state to an expanded state upon deployment ([0006]; [0028]: “it can be provided that the corner reflectors are foldable or inflatable corner reflectors”).
Regarding Claim 6, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the one or more retroreflectors are corner reflectors ([0009]).
Regarding Claim 8, Moderegger as modified does not explicitly teach – but Burgess teaches: wherein the controllable aerial propulsion unit is autonomous or semi-autonomous (Burgess [0003]: “autonomous”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moderegger and use an autonomous controllable aerial propulsion unit, as taught by Burgess, with a reasonable expectation of success. Autonomous propulsion units are well-known in the art, and are beneficial for positioning the decoy system without human input.
Regarding Claim 10, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the one or more retroreflectors comprise multiple reflective faces ([0012]: “octahedral radar reflector”).
Claims 9, 11-16, 19-20, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moderegger (US 2022/0290951) and Burgess (US 2018/0072419), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuperman (US 2022/0089295).
Regarding Claim 9, Moderegger as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the propulsion unit is foldable.
However, Kuperman is in the field of UAVs (Kuperman [Abstract]) teaches: wherein the propulsion unit is foldable (Kuperman [0045]: “The present invention provides a UAV capsule, which is a container housing a UAV in a folded or otherwise compacted state and configured to be loaded into a compatible launcher or holder”).
In that Moderegger teaches foldable corner reflectors and configuring the decoy target to be launched ([0028]; [0033]), and Kuperman teaches a foldable UAV, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moderegger and use a foldable propulsion unit, as taught by Kuperman, with a reasonable expectation of success. A foldable propulsion unit allows for easier deployment of the system (Kuperman [0007-0011]).
Regarding Claim 11, Moderegger as modified teaches:
An airborne passive decoy round for use in a radio waveband, wherein the decoy round comprises a passive decoy system … held within a casing and wherein the decoy round is configured to eject the decoy system from the casing at a predetermined time and/or location after launch ([0006]; [0028]; [0033]).
Moderegger as modified does not explicitly teach – but Kuperman teaches:
wherein the decoy round comprises a passive decoy system according to claim 1 held within a casing (Kuperman [0045]; Examiner note: Modergger teaches the passive decoy system according to claim 1, and teaches decoy targets held within a casing, but does not explicitly teach that the UAV can be held within a casing. Kuperman teaches a foldable UAV in a casing.).
In that Moderegger teaches a decoy target held within a casing, and Kuperman teaches a foldable UAV held within a casing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moderegger to hold the decoy system according to claim 1 within the casing, as taught by Kuperman, with a reasonable expectation of success. Holding the system withing a casing allows for easier deployment of the system (Kuperman [0007-0011]).
Regarding Claim 12, Moderegger as modified teaches: a passive decoy launching system comprising a launcher and a decoy round … ([0006]; [0028]; [0033]).
Moderegger as modified does not explicitly teach – but Kuperman teaches: a decoy round according to claim 11 (Kuperman [0045]; Examiner note: see rejection for Claim 11 above).
In that Moderegger teaches launching a decoy target held within a casing, and Kuperman teaches launching a foldable UAV held within a casing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the launching system of Moderegger with the decoy round according to claim 11, with a reasonable expectation of success, to allow for easier deployment of the system (Kuperman [0007-0011]).
Regarding Claim 13, Moderegger as modified teaches:
A method of deploying an airborne passive decoy for use in the radio waveband, said method comprising:
(i) providing an airborne passive decoy system according to claim 1 (Examiner note: see rejection for Claim 1 above);
(ii) identifying an incoming threat using a long-range detection system and determining a remote decoy location ([0017]: “if a missile … has been detected”);
(iii) using the controllable aerial propulsion unit to position the decoy system at or near the remote decoy location ([0017]; [0060]; Examiner note: in order to defend a missile attack, the decoy system would have to be positioned at the correct location), and
(iv) deploying the one or more retroreflectors ([0017]; [0064]: “decoy target 2 according to the invention in the deployed state”) involving releasing the one or more retroreflectors from the aerial propulsion unit ([0022]: “The connection by the connecting elements can be permanent or temporary.”; [0027]; [0065]: “the majority of corner reflectors 11 are connected to the aircraft 20 in a floating manner via the at least one connecting element 13”), wherein the one or more retroreflectors remain linked to the aerial propulsion unit after deployment by means of a tether ([0022]: “The connection by the connecting elements can be permanent or temporary.”; [0064]; Fig. 2a, 2b showing the decoy system, including a propulsion unit linked to retroflectors, in a “deployed state” (i.e., after deployment)).
Regarding Claim 14, Moderegger as modified teaches:
A method of deploying a passive decoy for use in a radio waveband, said method comprising the steps of:
(i) providing a launching system … ([0033]);
(ii) identifying an incoming threat using a long-range detection system and determining a remote decoy location and trajectory ([0017]);
(iii) launching the decoy round and ejecting the decoy system at or near the remote location ([0017]; [0033]; [0060]); and
(iv) deploying the one or more retroreflectors ([0017]; [0064]) involving releasing the one or more retroreflectors from the aerial propulsion unit ([0022]; [0027]; [0065]), wherein the one or more retroreflectors remain linked to the aerial propulsion unit after deployment by means of a tether ([0022]; [0064]; Fig. 2a, 2b).
Moderegger as modified does not explicitly teach – but Kuperman teaches:
(i) providing a launching system according to claim 12 (Examiner note: see Claim 12 above for rejection and obviousness rationale).
Regarding Claim 15, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the aerial propulsion unit provides lift to the one or more retroreflectors at step (iv) ([0035-0038]).
Regarding Claim 16, Moderegger as modified does not explicitly teach: wherein the remote location is revised or updated at or after step (ii) or (iii) and wherein the aerial propulsion unit repositions the decoy system based on the revised or updated remote location.
However, in that the decoy system of Moderegger uses UAVs to position the decoy system ([0060]) and is designed to protect against modern missiles ([0008]), especially the end phase of a missile attack ([0024]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Moderegger to reposition the decoy system at an updated location, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to effectively defend a missile attack.
Regarding Claim 19, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the airborne passive decoy system provided in claim 13 is provided on a maritime platform ([0016]).
Regarding Claim 20, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the method involves providing a plurality of airborne passive decoy systems and/or launching systems and wherein the one or more retroreflectors of each airborne passive decoy system and/or associated airborne passive decoy system are deployed in conjunction with each other to create a spatially positioned array (Fig. 3; [0067-0068]).
Regarding Claim 23, Moderegger as modified teaches: a method of using of a plurality of airborne passive decoy systems according to claim 1 to deploy a spatially positioned array of retroreflectors (Figs. 3, 4; [0067-0069]).
Regarding Claim 25, Moderegger as modified teaches: wherein the spatially positioned array of retroreflectors mimic an object ([0009]; [0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Burgess does not disclose or suggest a release means that is capable of both deploying one or more retroreflectors from a pre-deployed state and severing a tether to dispense the retroreflectors, thereby allowing the controllable aerial propulsion unit to be reused. Applicant further argues that the payload-release device and emergency-release system of Burgess are “disparate sub-systems” and “structurally distinct components” of the delivery system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Burgess teaches a UAV that includes a payload delivery system 110. The payload delivery system 110 holds the payload “against or close to the bottom of the UAV 100, or even inside the UAV 100” (i.e., in a pre-deployed state), lowers the payload via tether 102 and tether-deployment mechanism 104 (i.e., deploys the payload), and the uses payload-release device 106 to “release the payload 108, and thereby detach the payload 108 from the tether 102” (Burgess [0037]). Burgess further teaches that the payload-release device 106 “may be operable to cut the tether or release the tether from the UAV 100” (i.e., sever the tether) (Burgess [0084]). Therefore, the payload delivery system is capable of both deploying a payload from a pre-deployed state and severing a tether to dispense the payload. Additionally, the emergency-release system is not an unrelated sub-system. The emergency-release subsystem is an optional component of UAV 100 and can cut or release the same tether 102 used by the payload delivery system 110 (Burgess [0091]).
Applicant argues that the combination of Moderegger and Burgess would render the references incompatible for their intended use.
Specifically, regarding Moderegger, Applicant argues that severing the connecting elements during operation would prematurely dismantle the reflector matrix and render it unusable for its intended decoy function.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Moderegger teaches that “the connection by the connecting elements can be permanent or temporary” (Moderegger [0022]) and that the reflector matrix configuration is constant “over a certain period of time, in particular the end phase of a missile attack” (Moderegger [0023]). Therefore, the connecting elements can remain intact while the reflector matrix performs its decoy function and be severed afterward, without rending the system unusable. Additionally, Claim 1 does not require severing the tether while the retroreflectors perform their decoy function.
Regarding Burgess, Applicant argues that severing the tether 102 would result in permanently abandoning the tether 102 and the payload-release device 106, which is incompatible with Burgess’s commercial package distribution system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Burgess teaches that the payload-release device 106 may “cut the tether or release the tether from the UAV 100” (Burgess [0084]) and that tether 102 may be severed and “thereby [disconnect] the unreeled tether 102 (and payload-release device 106) from the UAV 100” (Burgess [0092]). Therefore, severing the tether and the payload-release device is not incompatible with Burgess’s commercial package distribution system. Additionally, Claim 1 does not require retaining the tether or the release means.
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights